Ms Justice Una Ni Raifeartaigh dismissed the businessman’s action against the Clerk of the Dáil and the State after upholding the respondents core argument – the Constitution prohibits the courts intervening over “utterances” in either House of the Oireachtas.

Article 15.13 of the Constitution states members of the Oireachtas are not amenable to any court or authority other than the Houses themselves for “utterances” in the Houses.

Clearly the capacity of elected representatives to bring issues to public light is essential in a democracy. This right has been used to truly excellent effect by some of the TDs first elected in 2011.

BUT……….There have been clear instances of things being said which are demonstrably factually incorrect AND damaging to someone’s character.

And a fair bit in between.

So I ask: should TDs have essentially an infinite right to say what they please within the Chamber?

But that doesn’t mean that DOB or the like should be allowed remove the Constitutional privilege of whatever “utterances” they may make. Maybe more stringent Dail rules of self policing could be applied for infringements. How those rules should be enforced tho….

But it’s a win for democracy that DOB lost today, and that’s made my day :)

Give me some evidence that the centuries old tradition of parliamentary privilege has worked against the public good.

Emphasis on the public good aspect. I think we already stack the deck too much in favour of protecting individuals ‘reputation’ and not enough on the side of the public good. If ti were reversed maybe certain nameless slime-balls could have been prosecuted after several unnamed Tribunals of Inquiry made serious but non-actionable findings of fact about them.

Last year we had a farce of a weekend where the national media wouldn’t or couldn’t report on utterances in our national parliament because one man not even habitually resident in Ireland with lots of money scared them. He scared them because he has money and lawyers – while he may not ever have a case against you, that’s never stopped him pursuing you for months on end wasting money he can well afford and you can’t. It;s called a ‘chilling effect’ – I want to say X but is it really worth the solicitors letters. You have your work cut out to argue that expanding our draconian defamation laws in his favour will somehow benefit our society.

“It should be deleted from our vocabulary. It comes to this: ‘Unjust decisions make good law’: whereas they do nothing of the kind. Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it.”

“Do we trust a collegiate group such as Oireachtas members to effectively regulate the utterances of their own peers?

Can you think of another public body without any kind of external accountability framework in this dimension?”

This one?

I kind of do. I mean we have to. We trust them with our lives and safety and welfare every day. I can’t think of a catastrophic out-turn having come from Dail privilege? Did Mary Harney scotch a court case once?

The Oireachtas isn’t any public body though, it’s our democratically elected parliament. The external accountability framework is the electorate. I’d like to see a plan where you can formally regulate the speech in the parliament in a way that isn’t farcically undemocratic or open to abuse by a majority over a minority, i.e. government parties censuring opposition parties.

A lot of whistleblower revelations came up in the Dail – most were proved right – would they have a lesser or higher chance of being exposed if there’s a chilling effect on TDs?

You are presumably a fully compliant tax-paying citizen. How would you feel if a parliamentarian accused you personally of tax evasion?

Parliamentary privilege is very important and generally well used. But should it be absolute and infinite? Are the motives and integrity of all TDs always pure at all times when speaking on the record?

You are again comparing apples and oranges. Denis O’Brien controls a significant percentage of our media. Denis O’Brien has friendly personal relationships with people in our government. His media empire is not going to inform the people, who have a right to know, about what Denis O’Brien does and has done. Dail privilege protects ordinary people, like Catherine Murphy, from wealthy, well connected capitalists and their expensive legal teams so she can inform ordinary people, like us, about information we have a right to know about.

TLDR
DOB is rich and owns media assets so its grand for politicians to say whatever they want about him in the Dail with no meaningful oversight.

Considering both Pearse Doherty & Catherine Murphy spoke about his banking arrangements – both citing different interest rates. One of them must have been telling porkies as they both can’t have been right. Neither have admitted to being wrong and the Dail didn’t get to the bottom of it.

Politicians self censuring is about as pointless as politicians governing their expense accounts.

Ah here..DOB doesn’t want oversight because nothing said about him was untrue. He wants to silence TDs in the Dail. Oversight would entail analysing what was said and him/his lawyers proving what was untrue. He doesn’t want to do that of course.

He just wanted his privacy. If the Irish Taxpayer gives you tens of millions in write offs and preferential interest rates on state owned banks, we have a right to know about it.

At least they registered with SIPO, and have complied with the rules.
– – – –
When I wrote to SIPO complaining about YD’s (and Iona Institute) large advertising budget spending which I was able to calculate to be upwards of €100k* some years ago when they were more active, SIPO were toothless to act as they had not complied with the voluntary registration with them.
(* numbers calculated via info from MediaLive.ie)
– – – –
I am delighted to see Soros money being kicked out, regardless of who or what he supports.

Yeah. They certainly seemed keen to comply with rules. If anything, it looks like their honesty led to them being made give the money back. Other organisations who benefitted from the same source and reportedly used it for slightly different purposes didn’t have to return the money.

I have no gripe with Soros. But less pro-abortion funding must be a good thing.

Jesus, it’s not like you don’t know they have these rights in the first place.

The electorate chose their elected representatives, it’s up to them to decide who they put into that position. It’s the electorates civic responsibility to chose the best people to bestow those rights to.

The separation of powers (Judicial and Legislative in this case) is the cornerstone of a functioning democracy and this was a case where that was demonstrated.

Also, ffs your “four legs good” analogy comes from a book critiquing the single party rule of the USSR.

And the difference between the current political regime and the USSR is less than a hair breath.

Us imbeciles are pretty good at the reading, so we know exactly where the reference comes from; hence the purpose for quoting it. Sometimes I wonder if Broadsheet is actually located in Leinster House for the amount of social pacifying and generic “trolls” which accommodate themselves here is laughable.

The current government is not a government elected by the majority of the electorate. It is a government which practically elected itself. In addition, the candidates which grace our lamp posts during general elections are rarely different than the previous election. So to suggest that the “electorate” has a choice is possibly correct, however the choices provided offer no diversity, change of regime, change of procedure or any sense that the electorate has any influence in how the state is run…..

That’s a nice straw man you’ve made there. My point relates to the existence of democracy as demonstrated by the ability for people to vote to elect representatives and for those elected representatives to be free to speak unencumbered by the judiciary. Your retort relates to the goverment, i.e. the executive branch of government to which neither of those representatives which spoke in thr Dáil are members of (Murphy and Doherty).

You have new clue you are born if you think Ireland is a hairs breath away from the USSR. Good luck in the gulags friendo, because that’s where you’re headed for publishing an opinon questioning the authority of the state.

…. its moments when senior political individuals and appointees of senior political appointments believe that they are beyond accountability that Government paint this country like a Cold War era.

Not referring to anything in particular, nothing like a massive police force scandal, nothing like a political leader suggesting that they will address their tenure at an agreed point, and then only to address it at that agreed point by announcing they are not going to address their tenure at all.

Not referring to a elected Government ministers whom have registered default judgements against them, and their enterprises for failure to pay commercial debt and/or declared taxes. Not referring to sitting ministers involving themselves in commercial negotiations with state organizations.

which part of Leinster House do the government appoint the Broadsheet trolls?

Asspants, bang on. I too am sick of being castigated for the alleged ‘choices’ that we make. The electorate in reality are given a very thin ‘choice’ indeed in any election. One is left studying the entrails, trying to select “the least worst”. The quality of candidate, from a public service perspective, is abysmal. Your Sheik, alas, would not appeal to the electorate :-D